November 2011

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829 30   

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Wednesday, November 19th, 2003 01:03 am
so. ::peers at friendslist:: Massachusetts.

[livejournal.com profile] elke_tanzer has gathered a heaping shitload of links from across her friendslist, which is all for the good.

Bush apparently has already tried to retaliate.

And? For various obvious and sundry reasons I'm pro-marriage, in the idealistic for-love-not-money kinda way that I've been raised and bred in. And my concept of love is all-inclusive.

The anti-gay-marriage stance would make more sense if we still lived in a world where people married only to maintain their hereditary line. But people kinda are against the concept of arranged marriages and marrying for money nowadays...

What I'd like to know is what we Americans think, nationally, about this subject. I know that as a Californian, and as a slash fan, I could only represent my little corner of America. I wonder how much good Queer Eye and QaF have done. I wonder how fundamentalist those religious groups actually are and how far they are actually willing to go. It makes me wonder if they are as fringe as I hope they are.

Thing is, it would be devastating if they were the only voices being heard, with no one to question or challenge their fears with anything more logical. Because the anti-gay marriage feeling is based on fear I think, and:

Fiat Lux, goes Berkeley's motto.

Bring the Light
But to do this, one would need solid arguments. I refuse to sound as hysterically uninformed and illogical as this country's Fearless Leader.

So I pose a question to all of you:

What are some arguments or counterarguments you use in the pro/anti-gay-marriage discussions?

The one that affects me the most goes, "So you're going to be banning marriage between a man and a sterile woman as well?", in response to the nature/God ordained sanctity of a male-female marriage.

I've also been hearing good arguments along the lines of the separation of church and state and the fact that by banning gay marriages, the state is trodding on the rights of some religions/religious subgroups (Unitarian, I think? correct me and add more to the list?).

Other ones? Or recommendations of good posts from your own friendslists?

[speaking of good posts, I recommend [livejournal.com profile] ivyblossom's and [livejournal.com profile] cathexys' entries on the subject, both of which are lengthy and well thought out]

[edit] semi-relevant article

[edit2] letter from [livejournal.com profile] gileonnen to the president on the subject.
Thursday, November 20th, 2003 08:40 am (UTC)
What are some arguments or counterarguments you use in the pro/anti-gay-marriage discussions?

Hmhmmm... well, I keep hearing how letting two men or two women get married is somehow detrimental to the "sanctity of marriage", whatever the fuck that means. I have yet to hear a strong, solid argument against letting gay people get married.

If it's because of procreation, I'll point to my sister, who doesn't want kinds -- should she be allowed to get married? Or people who are too old to have kids? Infertile people?

If it's because it's a holy instution -- I'm an atheist, I won't be getting married in a church, should I be allowed to get married?

Don't television series like "Married by America" and "Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire?" do more harm to the sanctity of marriage anyway? If Joe Blow can pick up a random hooker in Vegas and marry her within ten minutes... well, "sanctity of marriage" my ass.

I live in the Netherlands, by the way, one of the few countries where gay marriage is legalized, or rather, civil marriage was opened up to everyone. Nothing has changed since the first gay couple got married on April 1st, 2001. NOTHING. The fact that Jim and Joe can get married if they want to has no effect whatsoever on the relationship I have with my boyfriend, or on my parents' marriage, or on the marriage of the straight couple down the street.

Saying that allowing gay couples to get married will somehow "damage" society is fucking bullshit. It won't, and Holland, Denmark, Belgium and Canada (among others) can prove it.